Committee of Ministers Secrétariat Du Comité Des Ministres

SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES

Contact: Zoë Bryanston-Cross Tel: 03.90.21.59.62

Date: 27/11/2020 DH-DD(2020)1109

Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1390th meeting (1-3 December 2020) (DH)

Communication from the Cypriot authorities (26/11/2020) in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Application No. 25781/94)

Information made available under Rule 8.2a of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1390e réunion (1-3 décembre 2020) (DH)

Communication des autorités chypriotes (26/11/2020) relative à l’affaire Chypre c. Turquie (requête n° 25781/94) [anglais uniquement]

Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 8.2a des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables.

DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

CYPRUS v TURKEY Application No. 25781/94 DGI 26 NOV. 2020 1390th CM(DH} MEETING, DECEMBER 2020 SERVICE DE L’EXECUTION MEMORANDUM DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH BY THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS

MISSING PERSONS PAYMENT OF JUST SATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION

1. lt has been a year since the Deputies decided to resume consideration of the execution of the judgment in Cyprus v Turkey in relation to the missing persans, at their 136ih meeting of December 2019. The Republic of Cyprus is grateful to the Deputies for their continued attention to this important humanitarian issue.

2. lt has been almost 20 years since the Court handed down its main judgment in the case. Nonetheless, the Respondent state continues to demonstrate defiance for that judgment, as well as for the Court's Just Satisfaction judgment of 2014 whereby it awarded €90 million to be paid for the benefit of the relatives of the missing persans and the enclaved Greek Cypriot residents of the Karpas peninsula. That defiance is demonstrated by the information provided in Turkey's Memorandum for this meeting, or rather by the lack of it. No new information has been forthcoming which would indicate a fulfilment of the Respondent state's obligations under the Convention identified by the Court in its main judgment. Furthermore, the Respondent state is once again silent on the issue of its unconditional obligation to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court.

JUST SATISFACTION

3. Despite the Deputies' repeated insistence over the years, Turkey continues to date to withhold payment of the amounts awarded by the Court as just satisfaction in its judgment of 12 May 2014. Most recently, by their Decisions of December 2019, the Deputies "insisted again firmly on the unconditional obligation of Turkey ta pay the just satisfaction awarded by the [Court]" with its judgment of 2014 "without Jurther de/ay". DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

This insistence has since been repeated by the Deputies in their Decisions at their 1377bis meeting of September 2020.

4. Turkey consistently fails not only to make payment, in defiance of both the Court's judgment and the Deputies Decisions, but even to set out a plan for payment, or to inform the Deputies of any progress in that direction. These failures, years after the Court handed down its judgment, can only be regarded as deliberate. ln a further display of disregard, no indication or mention of the issue is made in its recent Memorandum.1

5. The Republic of Cyprus deeply regrets that Turkey still remains in flagrant violation of its international obligations under Article 46 of the Convention, having failed to pay to date the amounts awarded by the Court as Just satisfaction in its judgment of 12 May 2014, that is, €30 million in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the surviving relatives of the missing persans, who the Court noted "had endured decades of not knowing, which must have marked them profoundly" (§56). The Court further unconditionally ordered that €60 million be paid in respect of non- pecuniary damage suffered by the enclaved Greek Cypriot residents of the Karpas Peninsula.

6. Cyprus brings to the attention of the Deputies yet aga in, that those sums were ordered (a) to be paid in their entirety within three months (i.e. by 12 August 2014), and, (b) to be distributed by the Government of Cyprus to the individual victims. The total sums 2 now due are well in excess of €100 million . However, Turkey still remains unapologetically silent on its continued failure to pay those amounts.

7. The fact that since 2014 no relevant information on the matter has been forthcoming, and no indication of the date of payment has been provided by Turkey during proceedings before the Committee, is indicative of its provocative disregard for those proceedings and for the Court's judgments. lt is moreover evident from the fact that Turkeys' recent Memorandum:

i. contains·no explanation as to why it has failed to comply with the Court's order to date (though self-evidently, no explanation could constitute an excuse); and

DH-DD{2020-)1003. The Secretariat calculated the sums due as of March 2019 at €103.493,835.62. See DH-DD{2019)277.

2 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

ii. contains no indication or any information regarding the expected date of payment, with interest, of the just satisfaction that has been ordered in faveur of the victims of the violations of the Convention that the Court has attributed to Turkey.

8. lt is important to remind the Deputies, yet again, that the Court's just satisfaction judgment was described in the concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, joined by Judge Vucinié, as "the most important contribution to peace in Europe in the history of the European Court of Human Rights". Those Judges expressed the logic of the Court's judgment in the following words:

"The message to member States of the Councif of Europe is cfear: those member States that wage war, invade or support foreign armed intervention in other member States must pay for their unfawfuf actions and the consequences of their actions, and the victims, their famifies and the States of which the y are nationals have a vested and enforceab/e right to be du/y and fui/y compensated by the responsib/e warring State. War and its tragic consequences are no longer toferab/e in Europe and member States that do not camp/y with this princip/e must be made judiciaffy accountab/e for their actions, without prejudice to additionaf potitica/ consequences."

9. That passage demonstrates not only the exceptional significance of the judgment, but also the gravity of Turkey's failure to respond in any way to the binding, and unconditional, obligation placed on it by the Grand Cham ber of the Court.

10. The Court emphasised that "if just satisfaction is ordered in an inter-State case, it shou/d afways be done for the benefit o{individuaf victims" (§46, emphasis added). As in previous meetings, the Republic of Cyprus once again reiterates that it is fully committed to en su ring that individual victims will be the sole beneficiaries of the just satisfaction once it has been paid. The supervision of the Committee of Ministers, referred to in the just satisfaction judgment, will provide any additional reassurance that may reasonably be required.

11. lt is at least unfortunate, especially with regard to the functioning of the Convention system and the proceedings before the Committee, that by its failure to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, years after it fell due, Turkey continues to display

3 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

flagrant disregard not only for her international obligations, but also for the individual victims that those amounts were intended to benefit. lndeed, the more time that goes by, the aider those victims become, and the less benefit they risk being able to derive from such just satisfaction as may eventually be paid. The consequences of Turkey's failure for the core mission of the Court and of the Convention system as a whole are, indeed, profound. By failing to comply with a judgment of such exceptional significance, Turkey threatens the effectiveness of the Convention system as a promoter of peace and a guardian of democracy and the rule of law.

12. ln light of the above, the Republic of Cyprus urges the Committee of Ministers not only to deprecate Turkey' s breach of its clear and unconditional obligations, but to take the strongest action available to it to ensure that the Court's judgments are complied with in full. Cyprus accordingly requests the adoption of an lnterim Resolution as a mark of the Committee.'s disappointment, disapproval and dismay.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAIN JUDGMENT

13. The Decisions taken by the Deputies in December 2019, 3 when the issue of the missing persans was last examined, once again highlighted significant non-compliance with the Court's main judgment. That non-compliance relates, in particular, to the necessity of

i. providing all necessary assistance to the Committee on Missing Persans ('CMP'), and

ii. ensuring the effectiveness of the investigations into the circumstances surrounding the disappearances of the missing persans, as well as their rapid finalisation.

14. The Republic of Cyprus notes with regret that, Turkey has yet to fully abide by the Court's main judgment despite those Decisions. Nothing in its recent Memorandum indicates that Turkey has provided the assistance that is necessary for the CMP effectively to carry out its mandate in determining the fate of the missing persans, including unhindered access to 'military areas' and the provision to the CMP, proprio motu and without delay, of ail information at its disposai, including information in its military archives. Furthermore, no information has been provided in the Memorandum which indicates, any progress in

CM/Del/Dec{2019)1362/H46-30.

4 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

relation to the investigations conducted by the Missing Persans Unit ('MPU'} in the occupied areas of Cyprus. Moreover, nothing in the Memorandum suggests that any or significant progress will .be made in the near future. The anguish and suffering of the families of the missing persans thereby continues and most likely will continue, to be unjustifiably prolonged.

15. The Committee is reminded that under its restricted mandate, the CMP's task is to locate and identify the remains of the missing persans, and not to uncover the facts surrounding deaths and disappearances, or to hold individuals to account for them. Accordingly, as the 4 Court emphasised in its 2001 judgment, at §135, not even a perfectly-functioning CMP would be capable of meeting the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2 of the Convention. Turkey is under an obligation to comply with the Court's judgment in its entirety: this requires both unstinting compliance with the work of the CMP and decisive unilateral action in areas where the CMP has no jurisdiction.

A. ASSISTANCE TO THE CMP

16. With their Decisions of December 2019, the Deputies "underlined that, due to the passage of time, it remains urgent for the Turkish authorities to advance their proactive approach to providing the Committee on Missing Persans (CMP) with al/ necessary assistance so that it con continue to achieve tangible results as quickly as possible". ln this regard, they unequivocally called upon the Turkish authorities to:

• provide the CMP with unhindered access to ail areas of interest, including military zones located in the northern part of Cyprus, which could contain the remains of missing persans, and

4 "135. [. .. } the respondent State's procedural obligation at issue cannot be discharged through its contribution to the investigatory work of the CMP. Like the Commission, the Court notes that, although the CMP's procedures are undoubtedly usefu/ for the humanitarian purpose for which they were established, they are not of themselves sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2 of the Convention, especially in view of the narrow scope of that body's investigations." See further Varnava and others v Turkey (Applications nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90), Judgment of 18 September 2009), §192.

5 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

• advance their efforts to provide the CMP proprio motu and without delay with ail information at their disposai relating to burial sites and other places where remains might be found, including information in military archives.

17. ln its report entitled "Strategy 2017-2020", the CMP refers to the pressure of time, notes that relatives are still "desperately waiting for information on the fate of their missing", and proposes a range of measures and steps to locate new burial sites and accelerate its 5 current rate of delivery. A significant decrease in the last few years in the number of individuals exhumed and identified per year, and the decline in the percentage of successful excavations, as shown by the data provided by the CMP itself, 6 suggests that the CMP is struggling even to discharge its own narrow responsibilities.

18. The Republic of Cyprus acknowledges that the measures and restrictions put in place due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected, to some extent, the work of CMP on the ground. However, the poor performance in 2020 as regards the rate at which burial sites and the of remains missing persans are located and identified has parallels in the disappointing results achieved in other recent years. The remains of 49 Greek Cypriot missing persans (and 89 Turkish Cypriot individuals) were located in 2015. Since then,_ much smaller numbers of Greek Cypriots have been located: 15 in 2016, 23 in 2017, 7 in 2018, 27 in 2019 and 8 in 2020.

19. lt is clear from the Court's main judgment that the key to progress in the CMP's work, and indeed to the increase in the number of identifications of missing persans, is held by the Respondent state, whatever it might purport as to the extent of its involvement and responsibility. Significant hindrances to the work of the CMP which are imputable to Turkey are the denial of access to both military zones and civilian areas, a failure to provide crucial information at its disposai, including from military archives, and a failure to protect and safeguard known or suspected burial sites. Accordingly, the Deputies have repeatedly emphasised that the proactive assistance which Turkey is under an obligation to provide to the CMP is essential to that body's efficacy. This requires progress, inter alia, in the following areas.

Access to mifitary zones

Committee on Missing Persans in Cyprus, Strategy 2017-2020, Executive Summary. Data provided by the CMP at http://www.cmp-cyprus.org/content/facts-and-figures

6 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

20. A substantial part (some 60%} of the territory un der the effective contrai of Turkish troops in the occupied areas of Cyprus is still designated as so-called 'military zones'. Access to them, as well to adjacent areas, was for decades prohibited by Turkey. Accordingly, the Republic of Cyprus has long demanded before the CM(DH) that Turkey should allow immediate and unhindered access to the CMP to military zones in the occupied areas. After intensive pressure by the CM(DH} in recent years, Turkey finally proceeded partially to alter its original position. ln November 2015, permission was given to the CMP to access 30 sites in military areas in the occupied areas of Cyprus, with the CMP planning to carry out excavations in ten zones per year starting from 2016. ln 2017, permission was granted to the CMP to access an eleventh zone in addition to the ten for which permission was granted that year. Accordingly, in June 2018, the Deputies "noted with interest ... the information submitted by the Turkish authorities that the CMP wi/1 excavate in eight 7 additional mi!itary areas in 2018" . ln this connection, even though a request was made in September 2018 to the military authorities to replace 6 of the military areas which according to the 2015 Agreement were to be excavated in 2018, with 6 new sites, an excavation began only in one of the 6 new sites indicated (Askeia), and no written confirmation regarding the final number of granted permissions was provided.

21. Accordingly, the Republic of Cyprus has repeatedly brought to the attention of the Committee the importance of granting immediate and unhindered access to the CMP and its staff, to suspected or known burial sites in locations designated as military zones in the occupied areas. Even though at the 1273th meeting of December 2016, the Turkish authorities informed the Deputies that "the CMP can proceed with excavation in military 8 areas by merely informing the relevant authorities" , in reality, such excavations and/or access to military areas require the permission of the Turkish military authorities, which can under any circumstances be withheld. Turkey requires that the military authorities are given notice one week in advance of the CMP's intention to excavate, and of the identity of the persons who will participate in the scheduled excavation (including CMP and non CMP members i.e. witnesses / informants). The conditions under which such permission may be denied, or scheduled excavations disrupted, remain unclear to date.

22. With the above hindrances in minci, at the 136ih meeting of December 2019, the Deputies "we/comed... the information submitted by the Turkish authorities that in June

CM/Del/Dec(2018)1318/H46-24. 8 See DH- DD(2016)1323, par. 16.

7 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

2019 they provided the CMP with access to 30 additional suspected burial sites in military areas situated in the northern part of Cyprus, with the timing of excavations to be decided by the CMP; encouraged the Turkish authorities to continue with this approach and to provide the CMP with unhindered access to al/ areas which cou/d contain the remains of missing persans". 9

23. The Republic of Cyprus would like to have welcomed the development of June 2019, whereby the Turkish authorities granted permission to the CMP to access 30 additional sites in military areas in the occupied areas. However, it cannot do so because the unfortunate reality on the ground is that, even a year since the Deputies last Decision on the matter (above), unhindered access continues to be withheld.

24. There been no change or progress whatsoever with regard to the complicated and time consuming procedures in place for gaining access to military sites: since June 2019, only 7 of the 30 listed sites were accessed by the CMP to prepare for excavation. Moreover, since December 2019, excavations have conducted at only 2 sites from the listed "30 additional suspected burial sites in military areas" referred to in the Deputies Decisions of December 2019. To date, excavations have only been conducted in 4 sites in total out of the 30 listed sites in question.

25. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, the Turkish Cypriot Member informed CMP that the Turkish Army will not give any permission for excavation in military areas, until further notice. This position remains unchanged, even though CMP excavations affected by the nd COVID-19 restrictions were officially resumed as of 2 July 2020, according to CMP's press release. 10

26. Moreover, as underlined by the Republic of Cyprus at previous meetings, excavation work conducted in the past by the CMP in military areas to which access was eventually granted pursuant to pressure by the CM(DH), have been repeatedly interrupted by Turkish military forces (e.g. in Dikomo); the close and undue monitoring of these areas by Turkish troops therefore constitutes a hindrance to the work of the CMP. Also unduly hindered, without

CM/Del/Dec{2019)1362/H46-23. 10 http://www.cmp-cyprus.org/press-releases/cmp-resumes-full-operations - As stated in CMP's press st release (1 July 2020): "The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus resumes full operations. With the reopening of crossing points, bi-communal excavations are resuming as of tomorrow July 2nd, while CMP's Anthropological Laboratory had returned toits regular operations as of 22 June ... ".

8 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

reasonable explanation, are visits and access of witnesses and CMP staff to such sites. Even though the Turkish authorities have previously stated that witnesses and informants can visit known or suspected burial sites in military zones, provided that the military authorities are notified at least three working days in advance and are given the names, identification card numbers and car registration plates of the persans visiting, witnesses and CMP staff have repeatedly been denied access. Such instances include CMP staff and witnesses in the area of Deryneia and Stavros cemetery in the fenced-up area of Varosha (Famagusta). ln instances where witnesses were allowed to access a military area (in Trahonas, for example), they were not allowed freedom of movement, and as a result, lacked orientation to be able to provide exact information on the location of a burial place known to them.

27. lt becomes evident from the above that Turkey has failed to date to provide immediate and unhindered access to all military zones in the occupied areas, despite the repeated calls by the Deputies to this effect, most recently in December 2019. Accordingly, the Deputies should note the lack of progress in this respect.

Access to civilian areas

28. As highlighted by the Republic of Cyprus at the 136ih meeting in December 2019, the problems relating to access to suspected or known burial locations are not limited to military zones. ln its Decisions of December 2019, the Deputies "encouraged the Turkish authorities ... to provide the CMP with unhindered access to al/ areas which cou!d contain the remains of missing persans ... ". As it told the Committee in December 2019, the Republic of Cyprus identified in March 2019 at least 16 possible burial locations in so called civilian areas in the occupied part of Cyprus where the CMP had tried to excavate but where it was refused permission to do so on the basis that the owner and/or occupant 11 did not give his/her consent. Another four cases which have been reported since relate to access to sites in Mia Milia, Exo Metochi, and Lapithes (2 cases). Despite the fact that these instances clearly demonstrate an urgent need to address the issue to allow the CMP to excavate at its discretion in civilian areas, against the wishes of the owner and/or occupant, where burial locations are reported to exist, no such initiative has been taken to date. No information or reference to this matter is provided by Turkey in its

11 Argyta, Piyi Peristerona, Karavas, Epicho, Kythrea, Kioneli, Ammochostos (5 cases), Galateia, Neo Chorio, Lapithos, Kafazani and Kerinia.

9 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Memorandum for this meeting. Accordingly, one can conclude that there has been no progress whatsoever on this issue, insofar as the setting up of mechanisms to allow unhindered access to civilian areas in the occupied areas is concerned.

Provision of information

29. The provision of information remains another crucial factor which determines the success rate of the CMP's work and the efficient use of its resources. Information which cou Id lead to an increase in the recovery of the remains of missing persans by the CMP, which only Turkey has access to, includes both written records found in her military archives and persona! testimonies of military or auxiliary personnel who participated in the military invasion of Cyprus by Turkey in 1974, in relation to which personnel the CMP has no capacity to undertake full investigations under its restricted mandate. Particularly relevant is information regarding the bodies that were collected from the clearing of the battlefields after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Details on the mass burial locations of bodies that were collected from the battlefields, which can only be found in the military archives in Turkey's possession, continue to be withheld.

30. ln its Memorandum for this meeting (at para. 9), Turkey daims that "al/ information at the disposai of the Turkish side about possible burial sites have been provided ta the CMP", citing a report of the Secretary General of the United Nations prepared some 20 years th ago, that is, in 2000. At the 1318 meeting of June 2018, Turkey claimed that it was reviewing its archives for additional information on the location of burial sites of missing persans, on request by the CMP. ln this connection, at the same meeting, the Deputies once again called upon the Turkish authorities to provide the CMP "proprio motu with any information from the relevant archives, inc!uding military archives, in their possession on bu rial sites, and any other places where remains might be found ... ". 12 They also "noted with interest in this respect the information submitted by the Turkish authorities ..... on the ongoing work of the archives committee established by the Turkish side to examine the relevant archives for the information requested by the CMP on the location of remains ... ".

31. Once more, at the 136ih meeting in December 2019, the Deputies called upon the Turkish authorities, as at previous meetings, "to advance their efforts to provide the CMP

12 CM/Del/Dec( 2017) 1294/H 46-30.

10 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

proprio motu and without delay with al/ information at their disposai relating to burial sites and any other places where remains might be found, including information in military archives; ... ".

32. Turkey's daims at paras. 12-15 of its recent Memorandum, to the effect that it has provided information to the CMP, are vague and unsubstantiated. No information has been specified in this respect. As far as information from its military archives is concerned,

the Committee is reminded that, in purporting once again to share ail information at its disposai with the CMP, Turkey already stated, at the June 2018 meeting, that the 'archives

committee' set up in the occupied areas in 2016, granted permission to the Office of the Turkish Cypriot Member of the CMP, to access aerial photos from 1974 in order to locate possible burial sites for excavation. As noted again at the December 2019 meeting by the Republic of Cyprus, copies of these aerial photos were thereafter requested by the Office of the Greek Cypriot Member of the CMP, who received, however, only coordinates of 'suspicious' areas (notably, all such 'suspicious' areas excavated had yielded no remains). Unfortunately, even a year later, no progress has been made with relation to this request - and no related reference is made in Turkey's recent Memorandum. This signifies Turkey's à la carte approach to the dissemination of information to the CMP, which cannot be deemed acceptable. Moreover, it is at least deeply unsatisfactory that no other information whatsoever has been forthcoming. The restrictions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic could in no way provide any excuse for the lack of progress in this vital element of the assistance required by the CMP.

33. The overall. conduct of the Respondent state with regard to the provision of information,

most recently demonstrated by the fact that no new information has been forthcoming in response to the Committee's Decisions of 2019 with regard to this aspect of its obligations, is undoubtedly a cause of serious concern. The Deputies are therefore once again requested to call upon Turkey to fully disclose and /or provide to the CMP, on a non selective basis, ail information in her possession from her relevant archives, and especially from her military archives, in order effectively to aid the work of the CMP in determining the fate of the missing persons.

Protection/ safeguarding of bu rial sites

11 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

34. At the March 2019 and December 2019 meetings, the Republic of Cyprus brought to the Committee's attention the CMP's statement in its report entitled "Strategy 2017-2020", that: "A number of the burial sites discovered by the CMP have been found ta have been disturbed with remains being transferred ta unknown locations. As a resu/t, concerned fami!ies receive on/y residual human remains, or none at al!, and continue to await the missing remains for proper burials during years, which adds considerable pain to their ordea!".

35. There can be no doubt that the intentional disturbance of burial sites and exhumation of human remains is a significant hindrance to the progress of the work of the CMP. According to the information at the disposai of the Republic of Cyprus, the disturbance of burial sites has occurred in a number of sites in the occupied areas of Cyprus, in some cases with .the use of heavy machinery and in an organized, systematic and deliberate manner, with the intention of concealing evidence of crime. Examples include the relocation of the remains of at least 70 individuals from Askeia to a dumpsite, and the relocation of remains in the Bogazi military area, where few skeletal elements of two individuals were found in bags, with the Turkish army refusing to inform the CMP about 13 the primary location of the grave. Furthermore, a relocation of 31 soldiers was established in Kornokipos, of 24 soldiers in Lapatsa Hill and of 17 civilians in Strongilos.

Another example is the disturbed bu rial place of 7 or 8 soldiers in the military area of Saint Hilarion, evidenced by the fact that only small skeletal elements were found.

36. Accordingly, the Republic of Cyprus has in the past insisted upon the fulfilment of Turkey's obligation to conduct effective investigations to determine the persans responsible for such actions. Despite repeated pleas to Turkey, including through Decisions of the Committee, to provide information to the CMP on the new locations at which the relocated remains have been deposited, Turkey continues to deny the provision of and/or access to any relevant information.

37. Moreover, even though Turkey vaguely daims in its recent Memorandum (at para. 10) that "any new information that cames ta the disposai of the Turkish side about possible burial sites and other places where remains might be found is shared with CMP to assist its work", no substantiated and/or specific information relevant to this particular issue has

13 Relocation of remains has also been established at sites in Afaneia, Sinta, Ayios llarionas and Kornokipos, and as late as 2017,-in Voni and Dikomo.

12 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

been provided. This can only indicate that Turkey is not only inherently reluctant to assist the CMP in determining the fate of missing persans, but that she is also deliberately obstructing such work. Unfortunately, the intentional transfer of remains from their primary burial site, and the ongoing refusai by the Turkish authorities to inform the CMP of the new locations where they have been deposited, leads to unsuccessful excavations and/or augmented costs as more bone samples have to be sent for genetic analysis to laboratories, and thus to a waste of valuable resources and time. This becomes more evident at bu rial locations within military zones excavated so far, where it was established that remains were both intentionally disturbed or left unprotected from other activities. ln these cases, the recovered remains were in a highly fragmentary and incomplete state. Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases where remains were relocated, no information has been forthcoming from the Turkish authorities on the location to which these were transferred. The attention of the Committee to this issue is therefore warranted.

38. Even though the Republic of Cyprus has repeatedly insisted that Turkey ensures the active protection of known burial locations of missing persans or even possible burial locations which have been identified in order to circumvent unwarranted human activities in these areas (for both private and public works), no mechanism to safeguard these locations has been put in place to date.

B. INVESTIGATIONS BY THE MPU

39. Turkey's compliance with the Court's main judgment also entails the fulfilment of her obligation effectively to investigate the circumstances surrounding the disappearances of the missing persans, and to collect and assess evidence with a view to prosecution, a task which she has entrusted to the 'Missing Persons Unit' {'MPU') in the occupied areas of Cyprus. As the Court has noted several times, that is a matter entirely distinct from the work and mandate of the CMP (see para. 15 above).

40. With its Decision at is 136ih meeting in December 2019, the Deputies "reiterated their cal/ on the Turkish authorities to ensure the effectiveness of the MPU's investigations, as we/1 as their rapid finalisation, and invited them to continue to transmit to the Committee of Ministers information on the progress of the investigations and their outcome, in particu/ar in the case of Savvas Aposta/ides; ... ".

13 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

41. ln order to assess whether the MPU is effective, and indeed the progress and conduct of the investigations it conducts, Turkey must provide the Deputies with full and detailed information, including documentary evidence such as the File Reports it transmits to the 'Attorney General' for review. As will be explained below, the information provided by Turkey in its recent Memorandum is insufficient, and as such provides no basis upon which the Deputies cou Id corne to concrete conclusions on the matter.

42. If one compares the numerical data provided by Turkey in its previous Memorandum of 14 December 2019 with the numerical data provided in its Memorandum for this meeting, it becomes evident that almost no concrete progress has been made in the investigations during the last year. According to the data, 700 files have been transmitted so far by the CMP to the MPU, that is, 15 more in the last year. 441 of these files are said to have been finalised by the MPU, that is, only 2 more since last year. As far as those 441 finalised files which have been reportedly transmitted to the 'Attorney General' from the MPU are concerned, the Attorney General has completed overall, the examination of 306 files to date, which according to the information provided in Turkey's recent Memorandum,

means that not a single examination has been concluded by the Attorney General in the last year.

43. Those figures strikingly indicate that only well under half of the total number of files transmitted by the CMP to the MPU {700 to date) have so far been the subject of a finalised investigation. Equally striking is the fact that from the investigations reportedly carried outso far, not even a single case has led to prosecution proceedings. Ta ken on its own, this fact provides sufficient grounds to reject any of Turkey's arguments as to the effectiveness of the investigations conducted so far. These results are far from satisfactory: the Deputies are invited to take note of this lack of progress and satisfactory outcomes.

44. Nor is the Committee in a position to reach concrete conclusions as to the overall effectiveness of the MPU, given that the content and conclusions of the investigations reportedly finalised so far have not been disclosed to the Committee, save in four cases15 which, in terms of results, correspond to not even one percent of the 700 files transmitted

14 DH-DD(2019) 1310. 15 Two of these four investigations concern Savvas Hadjipantelli and Andreas Varnava.

14 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

by the CMP to the MPU so far. lndeed, the Deputies invited Turkey in December 2019, to present "information on the progress of the investigations and their outcome" (i.e. the conclusions of the final reports), and in particular, in the case of Savvas Apostolides. A year later, however, no such information has been forthcoming. According to Turkey's recent Memorandum, the investigation on Savvas Apostolides has still not yet been completed, and consequently a Final Report has not been prepared, pending the examination of the case by the 'Attorney-General'. The lack of progress in this particular case, without reasonable explanation, a whole year since the last Decision of the Deputies on the matter, is indeed alarming, and raises doubt as to whether the investigations are conducted in a genuine and bona fide manner.

45. The information presently before the Committee can only give rise to serious concerns as to the overall effectiveness of the MPU and the so called "second step in the investigation process". The same information would indicate that any additional resources claimed to have been provided to the MPU in support of its work could not reasonably address the lack of progress in the investigations thus far.

CONCLUSIONS

46. For the reasons stated above, and in the absence of any steps taken by Turkey in advance th of the 1390 meeting to meet its obligations, the Republic of Cyprus requests that the Deputies:

ln relation to just satisfaction:

a. underline the vital importance of the unconditional obligation to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court in 2014;

b. express their dismay at the continued failure of Turkey to comply with that obligation;

c. instruct the Secretariat to draft an lnterim Resolution, to be adopted by the Committee at its next examination of the case of Cyprus v Turkey, as a mark of the Deputies' disapproval of Turkey's overall dismissive attitude towards proceedings

15 DH-DD(2020)1109: Communication from Cyprus. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

bath before the Court and the CM(DH), and of its flagrant disregard of the Court' s judgments and its corresponding obligations under the Convention, and to exhort the Turkish authorities to pay immediately the just satisfaction and interest that have been ordered by the Court.

ln relation to the missing persans

a. call upon Turkey to provide immediate and unhindered access to all military zones;

b. call upon Turkey to provide full information from reports and military archives in its possession containing information on burial sites, including relocated remains and places of possible relocation of remains, and information originating from the period of the clearing of battlefields;

c. call upon Turkey to take concrete positive measures to avert any future relocation of remains and disturbance of burial sites;

d. call upon Turkey to adopt a genuine and proactive approach in the investigation of the fate, whereabouts and circumstances of the disappearance of all missing persans.